About your Search

20130313
20130321
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 153 (some duplicates have been removed)
of this issue this department is struggling to help out. while i do support the law of the day there is should be some natural exceptions to that. there seems to be a lot of comments on sequel, smaller projects need a beginning, middle and a logical, rational ending, an ending that is not going to deprive anybody of their due process in san francisco, everybody values process. i think there is a natural logical break. >> thank you. any additional public comments on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. we would like to say that we echo the statements of the first 3 speakers. eric, bernie and howard and test also. i think in the interest of fairness we should wait until we have decided what happens. it's not just human beings that rely and need sequel. it's also species like sir daniel that we might not see if we don't take time to smell the roses. having this service animal has meant a lot to me and to see what he does. we talk about an environment we live on everyday. i understand the sentiments of these people. these are the risks we take. there are no guarantees in life. but taxes an
cannot expire without a chance for notice and hearing. so that's due to state case law. so to the extent i think would you always have to have a hearing before officially revoking a permit. regardless of whether it's been extended. >> it's this period where they don't know if they have a permit or not. if you went by the rules and extended for 3 more years or whatever that period, you are still in the same predicament that someone who got a permit and didn't do anything. i think that should be stricken. >> we'll investigate it and talk to the city attorneys office and report back to you with what we can do. >> commissioner border? >> yes. i think this is an issue to get around the 3 year provision because we've seen a lot of cases. what we looked at in the hearing is the extension of the period. i don't know about the older projects because i think it's a little bit more complicated depending on the project and the number of times that people have come back for entitlement and extensions. we would review, we can pull things off the list to review their plans. i think if the issue is pra
. the reason that was filed against him is because the law strictly cites that it has to be an elected official or a department head and bottom-line i was in the military for quite a few years and one of the things i learned is the co is responsible for everything that goes on under his or her command. one of the comments that mr. [inaudible] made were regarding sergeant goss. he talked about all the expertise he had, experience, so forth, but sergeant goss for all his expeer seize cannot answer a simple idr in compliance with the law. some people say i want to embarrass people with my remarks. if the order is embarrassing, it is members of the legal division that have embarrassed the chief, not me. the simple fact that the legal division can't seem to accept a public records request and answer it on a timely basis is unacceptable. and the chief is responsible to see that all of the officers, all of the staff under his command follow the law. in in this case he did not. you can say you're just being picky, but on a nine to one vote turns out i was right, it was not responded to properly
. >> thank you. and apply to the law today los angeles laws that have passed and sometimes it does practically change the design. sometimes there are differences in code that really make that change and it might be to the detriment of how we might see the design. i think it would be useful in your analysis to look at some of those projects and where the code has changed and how that can be impacted in the over all project design. i'm all fore this kind of 60 day window process because i don't particularly find our discussion as particularly robust until they come back for extension but it's worth having a hearing if we choose those projects to review drawings. i recognize the challenges that what they may not -- people might opt in the process without actually being quite building permit ready. that's the challenge we have when people come for a 3 year entitlement. what they may come for a 3 year extension may not manifest when they do build. that's something we should have a whole separate discussion if the issue of design and outcome is changed. it's truly the change when we have
detail. but essentially the public trust doctrine exist in common law and a few other areas of state law. the port is really support to use these lands to promote meritime commerce and navigation, fisheries and the common law trust exist through a series of court cases, california court cases up through the california supreme court and california attorney general and the state land commissioner and we have the director of the state land commissioner, jennifer is here and i believe she'll participate in public comment. those three entities, the state lands commission and the attorney general's office and the california state system has common laws and rules for this state. there is rules in the california public resource code on how agencies like the court manage our property. one of the big rules is that we have to keep revenues from these land separate from the city's general revenues. where the state has handed over title to trust property to local agency like the city and county acting a the port there is a legislative trust grant. in our case in san francisco we have the burden act p
and law enforcement can work together on measures that will ensure that certain operators are being a bit more responsible because that creates an issue for everyone else and i think that is where i hope that we go. >> anything else? and by the way, i think who knew that three harvard law grads would be so interested in this issue. i think that is president chiu noted that. >> is there any, anything else that chief? >> no, i think that complete agreement here. we all want to see the city prosper, and the clubs do well, and do the safely and responsibly. >> i think that we are working towards that goal and working closely with the entertainment in doing it. >> why don't we open it up to public comment. any member who would like to speak, please come forward. >> hello, i am stephanie grain berg and i am here representing the cpab as well as the neighbors which is a neighborhood association (inaudible) ininclusive of the troubled long troubled broad way corridor. first of all, thank you for having this hearing, i think that it is very, very important. i am here really to request or plead, if
records laws public library were both involved in serving a democratic right to know and empowering the people. that was before the library and san francisco government decided that serving the interests of the so-called aeries toe contracts could be turned into a private income stream. ~ you have become so enslaved to private money you decided right to know is a place to save money. if we want a democracy, we need open institutions of knowledge that allow access to the truth. saving money on those institutions of knowledge is like selling our children. it is no accident that the san francisco public library is the most egregious sunshine violator in the city. once it is a private income stream, the philanthropyists want power and exclusivityity. the destruction of democracy is what they expect for the money and if corporate influence can destroy the public library, they can destroy what you care about next. the destruction of truth is the destruction of democracy itself, having me arrested did you not solve society's problems and of course the lies cost i city money. thank you. ~ c
further request a hearing of you today. we do need to talk about what is the law of the day. this is something that would be articulated in the stimulus possess in the clarification policy that we talked b the principles of the law of the day that a building application must conform to the law of the time of the approval. this is applying regardless of any provisions or what proifthsz provision were or were not in effect. what this means to take for example a project that hypotheticallily received your conditional use for the plan process but that didn't secure a building permit until after the plan's effective date, that building permit will be nonetheless be subject to all current provisions of that plan which can be parking control, use control. it does reflect long stand is advice from the city attorneys office and will apply going forward regardless of either of these two policies. here is our last slide commissioners and before you continue your discussion today we want to remind you on the mechanics of the policies of a single majority of commissioners is required in
through the ordinance language. not once does it mention pass through. these are laws which are currently on the books and we believe the process works in our significant meetings we've had with tenant communities and with the ram port, we know there are hardship applications available for disabled and senior citizens and people who can not afford a resident increase in this nature. i know they are one of five organizations that receive funding from san francisco to help people with this process. with a we would like to do and i would like to give credit to supervisors breed for the amendment in the ordinance that there is now amendment for community outreach. this is a broad base piece of legislation which is in a 30 year plan, but to put it in this ordinance is something we need to do with significant outreach to the community, to the existing city departments that are going to be plan checking this, but to really make sure that if someone can't afford to pay for this, there are avenues that someone can take and i'm happy to have you come up to discuss the detail hardship of this proces
by the open records laws, and the sunshine laws and i think in san francisco we haven't talked to the city attorney about that or your counsel about that but the open records laws and sean -- sunshine laws protect them up to appointment so we're not in a situation where every transmission of information is available to the general public. if that is the case or that becomes the case then we change the strategy around a little bit so we can help to protect the identity of the candidates, not necessarily the backgrounds, but the identity of the candidates by still abiding by those laws. >>i think one of the strengths of your team is the tremendous community involvement and searches that you done. i find it interesting to the work you did in l.a. and many nonprofits. my hope is as our diverse communities expect topnotch transportation selection processes like this that we can involve them in as many of the aspects of the profile and the competencies that we can and i welcome a number of stakeholder groups and give you the recommendations as we sit down to one-on-one conversations. >> thank
. >> and at least in spring through june. >> so we will actually have to adopt the change of the bi laws and we can call the meetings every month. >> i would rather keep it special meetings for may, april and, may, i think that once we get through, this, through the budget, i think that meeting at 9:30 will be appropriate. >> i don't want to go through changing the by laws. >> okay. >> that would be my preference >> thank you so much. the staff, and thank you so much to board members and if there are no further announcements are discussions the meeting is adjourned. >> -- to track stolen phones to be used in the field for other investigative purposes. that is approximately 977 dollars. >> you have a memo from the captain in your packets regarding this do nation. ironically to track cell phone thefts. is there anything you'd like to add? commissioners, questions or concerns? and is there any public comment regarding this matter. >> [inaudible] for quite a few times starting when he was the secretary for the police commission. i have a great deal of respect for him. i believe his promotion was w
, transportation venues, urs has supported more than 400 of the fortune 500 firms and state, and law law enforcement we have a workforce of over 50,000 individuals and have the much sought after safety act certification. the individuals that we used on the subject matter team and portion of this, they have got a wealth of background, and very indepth, we have phds in there. you have got, structural engineers. pes, hvac, meps, there is a whole range of law enforcement. so we brought a wealth of experience and a lot of people to this particular project. who have good experience with transportation, i should say that all of these individuals have transportation backgrounds as well. >> one of the reasons that urs is in a very good position to look at the transit center is because of our out reach, we have got extraordinary advantage to access and look at threatening information on a daily basis that is due in part to the contracts that we hold. some classified and some open. this access is conducted on a constant basis and we use it to validate the threats so that we know what is going on ev
with the realtor association to make sure that disclosure laws adequately cover this and make sure that people buying and selling these buildings are fully aware of the ordinance requirements and myself and the city staff is here to answer any questions that may come up. thank you. >> thank you, mr. leaney. >> so mr. egan, do you want to present? >> thank you supervisors. control economic developments. our office issued an economic report on this. i will make 3 points about it. first of all, like many forms of legislation it has cost and benefits as the supervisors have mentioned the benefits of this legislation are highly sensitive to the probability of an earthquake. those benefits include future repair cost as has been mentioned for people to be able to stay in their home after an event. certainly improved life safety. these benefits are highly sensitive to earthquake probabilities and based on the numbers from usgs, the most recent numbers we estimate there is about a 2 percent chance of an earthquake and the 2 percent probability alone would justify this immediate spent you sped expendi
for this law bass it is a law that i will like to see pass. the current state of soft story building residents an opportunity -- it's not that -- rather that owners even those that have the desires and resources to make-up grades are stuck in a catch 22 with regards to the pressures they are under in the housing mark. without looking to doing an upgrade seriously those that do remain the suckers as a disadvantage to the peers that do not. what management does is take that a way, 25 percent of the land building owners who were notified and required to do an evaluation did a retrofit. doing it now is inevitable. so why should you do exactly what berkeley did? they haven't passed their mandatory second phase retrofit ordinance yet and now they are the suckers again because of failure of government action to follow through. and only government action can signal to tenants that it's worth paying more for a retrofit unit. we need all stake holders in the environment to receive that. >> thank you very much. next speaker? >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is michael wills. i'm an architect and e
it back to one of my administrative law judges who holds a hearing. the whole process probably takes 2-3 months but in the meantime while that process is going forward, the pass through is stayed and the tenant is not obld obligated to pay. >> it takes 2-3 months to pass this? >> more or less. we have an incentive to expedited this. it would be after a lot of postponement because they are ill or something like that. usually what i do is try and call the other side. call the landlord and say could you please extend this pass through and usually they are cooperative. >> how long would you know this -- how well-known do you think this application is amongst renters? >> we think it's quite well-known because anytime we send a decision that contains a pass through. we send out a memorandum you mean in three languages that refer tenants to organizations to do actual outreach around hardship applications. i will admit, it's not pleasant. tenants, there is no privacy involved. once you say i cannot afford to pay a pass through that the landlord is required to. you have to prove that it you ha
improvements subject to the laws and regulations pertaining to the city contracts. and the laws such as san francisco administrative code section 6.22 g do not apply to the event and activities associated with it. ~ but because the city has agreed to reimburse the event authority for all amounts expended on construction contracts, the parties have agreed to apply the provisions of section 6.22 g. there is no reimbursement. the event authority is not being reimbursed one cent for any construction contracts being undertaken. so, all i can say to this committee is the foundation stone upon which the workforce plan was prepared and upon which the event authority agreed to pay prevailing wage and all the other things have been removed. and yet we have still voluntarily agreed to do it. and, so, in the backdrop of that, i really do question the tone here. the tone of innuendo that would try to tell somebody they were not trying to do the right thing. >> so, did you not agree to prevailing wage? >> we agreed to prevailing wage on the basis that we would be reimbursed for construction work. beyond
what? i really want to talk to you about that. because i am very proud of law enforcement stepping in. on february 6th, 2013, that the police commissioners meeting, last month, i gave you paperwork and spoke with all of you about fighting crime as i always do. i would like to thank you for listening and acting quickly. a lot of good police officers answered the call of duty and i want to salute them. i love hard core law enforcement. you guys took a big bite out of crime during the month of february. i want it to continue. i am very proud of law enforcement for stepping hard on crime. i urge you to continue with tough action, it has to be. once again, i say stop and frisk is a must and you know why. hard core law enforcement must continue all crime must be punished don't let anyone get away with anything. keep stepping hard on crime, it is needed on a 24-7 basis. and i know that you need this, i know that you know it, and i know that we need a budget that supports that as well. and i want you to understand that i seriously believe in tactical law enforcement. it is a must as well. and
1st, 2013. we are just triking that. the ordinance will become law 30 days after the mayor signs it since the legislation. so that was just a quick fix up. >> supervisor kim has made a motion to amend. is there a second to the motion? seconded by supervisor cohen. colleagues, without objection that passes. on the underlying ordinance can we take that same house same call? without objection, the ordinance is passed on the first read as amended. item 30. >> item 30 is motion appointing robert bowden, term ending july 17, 2013, to the reentry council. >> roll call vote. >> on item 30, supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. there are nine ayes. >> motion is approved. item 31. >> item 31, motion confirming the mayor's appointment of mel murphy, term ending may 1, 2016, to the port commission. >> colleagues, we have two colleagues who are not with us today and we have been
laws. these are events staging companies. >> is the language that we had in the agreement, though, was that standard prevailing wage language? >> no. it referenced the prevailing wage requirement of the admin code, but not the other provisions of the admin code that pertain to how we enforce prevailing wages on a public work. and it then went on to say that enforcement would be pursuant to the labor code. the labor code provides for the state labor commissioner to enforce. the state labor commissioner is not going to enforce a prevailing wage requirement on a privately funded san francisco project. so, the language could have been better. >> how was that language crafted? how was the process, was olse part half? >> olse was not part of that. ~ so, we requested payroll documents including time cards, check stubs from all the contractors as part of our audit. neither the event authority or hartman would provide olse with a copy of the contract between the event authority and hartman, which was confidential. but both parties agreed that if it contained the prevailing wage requiremen
locales -- local residents. they didn't follow the local letter of the law. we learned from that in the 15 years, 16 years the first source program has been around, that not once has any entity ever been penalized for violations of the first source agreement. ~ is that your understanding as well? >> correct, supervisor. my tenure doesn't go 15 year back, 15 months. at no time has liquidated damages been associated with first source. >> is there a policy within oewd that tries, attempts to avoid having liquidated damages apply? >> i wouldn't say it's a matter of policy, but the goal of city on our office on the employment side is to put san francisco residents to work, not to penalize employers. so, we will frequently use that as leverage as a means to gain employment for san francisco residents. similarly with the mandatory local hiring ordinance, we've been fortunate to date not to have levied any liquidated damages associated with that, but we have used that as a means to put san francisco residents to work successfully. >> so in the case with america's cup since we don't
and intimidate, but they try to find loopholes in the existing laws. and what we have right now is a last resort attempt to provide some protection to the patients who want to access this clinic and to the men and women who work there. the ordinance that we have -- we are introducing creates a buffer zone, that it provides protection of 25 radius within the entrance of the clinic. it amends the bubble ordinance that was passed by this board in 1993. that bubble ordinance was a good start, but this is needed. let me say that what we are doing is something that we don't do lightly. we recognize the right of people to express free expression, to express their speech. we protect the first amendment in san francisco. but the buffer zone ordinance that we are introducing is one that recognizes that we need strike a balance between the right to free speech and the right of women, especially to access health care. no right is absolute. and the courts have found that buffer zones like the one that san francisco -- that we are introducing today, in fact are narrowly tailored and survive legal scrutiny. th
of the matrix and we are recommended oppose. what this does in the p3 law that the transportation authority in conjunction with cal transfollowed for the drive project, there is in essence two state agencies that take a look at a public, private partnership application and one is the public investment, or the private investment, i forget, what it stands for, but it is a function of the transportation secretary's office. and it was a committee that was supposed to review, proposals and make comments. secondarily, the state transportation commission is empowered to authorize a public private partnership in lease and contract. this bill, highens the ability to actually act as an initial hurtle and they have a binding, and the binding ability to reject the public, private partnership proposal before it goes to the transportation commission, we think that is not what the original framers of the particular p3 law intended and it does add an extra burden to the process and we are recommending oppose to that. ab 863 is another one that we are recommending oppose, it seems like it was a measure that
put something into law and businesses know about it. and that really, not until a business gets to be about 100 employees, do they start having, according to the california employers association sort of in-house human resources person on staff. so this really helped us to sort of demonstrate the complexity. i think our kind of message is with the task force is more regulation may not necessarily be the need to deal with wage test and that we need to strengthen what is there. so that was kind of orientation was to demonstrate the amount of regulation that is currently there. and then i wanted to with the last two items are calendar item march 19th general services agency and contract monitoring division as parts of march as being international women's month for the commissioner on the status of women. they are doing a women's business enterprise workshop for women lbes and sbes and march 13 and march 23, thank you commissioner adams for the connection that bart is holding their revamping a program for small business program. and so they are do{alt+}{alt+shift+}dner kleinwort w
's certainly something that is reflecting the market and not the law. the law says a hundred percent. >> right. is there any data is that we have that suggest that with a market rate if you raised it by $80 that the tenant would leave. is there some kind of progression that shows that. in this current mark, i don't see that. >> right. it is a 20 year period as a pass through and the market rate is what it is. it's not what it is plus $80. i grant you that it's increasing rapidly in the current market. i think the reason property owners don't have that additional amount is because the demand is able to support what it supports and nothing more. but again, as we've looked at the distribution of tenants and how long they have lived in their property and about a quarter of tenants in san francisco have lived there less than two years. those are the ones that are least likely to get the full amount t vast amount of rent control in san francisco are below market. >> thank you. >> thank you, new further questions? thank you. i believe that is conclusion of the departmental conversations. for this po
dollars to the cab company. i want i respect the united states and i respect the law i want to go with the law but what i see a lot of people going against the law and not following the things. each and every rule helps for the drivers the taxi cab drivers we work with the people we help the people to get the grocery to get appointment to get to the doctor appointment but there's no one there there's no limo must tang for them when people are drunk we take them home. everything happens they can complain about us. but a must tango owe there is ang there is no one. uber there is no one. thank you very much. >> we'll go to about 3 and take a short break at that point. >> mr. chair man at this point rather than continuing to read names i'm going to ask people in this room just to speak up step forward stand upstate your name and we'll just go with that. >> hi what's your name sir? >> the state of california is full of communists and terrorists corruption and -- >> excuse me: >> the current situation calls for new taxes and medallion demand and supply created this business. the
's not a hard firm, it's a guideline. both in abc law and i think in the planning code. the map you were given, this is completely inaccurate. i am not talking about missing one or two. there is one block where she shows five licenses and there is nine. and on california street there are two bars next to each other. and also eating places not shown. california street needs to be included in this. and the rest of ncd from california south. because it's very serious now. and all of that area. and california street i understand has more proposed. i keep hearing. in fact i wonder why they wouldn't take a contract for the (inaudible) unless they want to turn that into a nightclub space. my sister took the bus the other night, the 19 on a saturday night about 11:30. the bus kept stopping. huge crowds outside of these bars. she said, why would anyone come? well, they don't but these youth. and now every bar they are all lined up out there. it's impossible for this number of bars to actually survive based on the people that live in the neighborhood or nearby. they are bussing people in from richmond a
, supervisors, i'm marc aronson. i'm a professor at hastings law school. i work in our civil justice clinic and a part of that is our community of economic development clinic which has been providing legal assistance to the san franciscans for health care housing, jobs, and justice. following up what comments have been made during the board discussion and also by my colleagues from the coalition, i want to emphasize that there is a great need for continuing input from in the monitoring and implementation of this agreement from community groups and that wisely our development agreement ordinance foresees this, envisions this. it specifically has provisions that provide for what are called collateral agreements and it anticipates that people who assigned those agreements will come from community coalitions. those agreements can be signed with the city itself, a particular city office. they can be signed with cpmc. they can be signed with them jointly. i urge you in the fashioning of the development agreement to envision a very specific role on select issues for the coalition in terms of the i
, the city has been in need of clarity on how c-e-q-a appeals should proceed since the state law changed in 2002 to allow appeals to the board. this proposal fairly provides both additional notification and additional clarity about how to appeal. it would enable valid c-e-q-a appeals to be considered, but would not utterly derail approvals when a c-e-q-a appeal is found to be either overturned by the board or not timely by allowing these approvals to continue while a c-e-q-a appeal is under consideration. the planning commission has recommended approval of similar proposals in 2006 and both the planning commission and the hpc recommended approval of an earlier draft in 2010 that was contained more elements. but that said, the department is requesting two additional modifications today. first as i said, increasing the appeal window to 30 days. and as you know currently the appeal window for e-i-rs appears to be functional and it is only 20 days. but this type of c-e-q-a document has much greater process and therefore we feel a longer window for the simpler documents with less process is a
's same time. our job is easier, we regulate and enforce law and regulate and so we don't have to necessarily, they have the advocacy program and part of the equation in that kind of makes their job even more difficult. >> i would suggest and i would appreciate your comments, and i would suggest that there be in the near future a joint meeting of the police commission and the entertainment commission. i think that having that discussion and that level of discussion by the policy-making bodies of both entities is useful and helpful. i know as a police commissioner i found discussions at that level with agencies useful and i think that it is only something that can lead to a positive thing. and i would encourage and in fact, i will be asking those bodies to at least look into that, i think that discussion will be helpful. >> i think that it is a great idea and i think that it could happen. >> supervisor weiner? >> just to be clear, in my statement, having people in the street at night increases public safety, i was not suggesting that having thousands of people unload from clubs
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 153 (some duplicates have been removed)